It’s not like you’re chained to the desk anymore. With all of the different options for e-books and such. I know it’s not tactily(sp)the same, but I bet as more and more publishing is on-line only there will be new technology that will give you much the same experience as reading a traditional magazine, or newspaper.

Nice E-mag Gabriel.
I follow you completely. Some more respect to contributors and collaborating artists is key to the success of a lot of publishers.

And, for some odd reason they then started hitting the internet, producing not 1 but several online magazines.

While lacking at one, they immediately started to SUCK at the other. (normal if you ask me)

Today, well, same as with Times:
- advertisers keep away
- stand sales drop
– there online projects move, but not as they should, so they only cost money
- …

Hopefully some people will start opening their eyes pretty soon, ’cause to my honest opinion, a whole lot of them won’t survive the recession if they don’t.

Everyone says photography has a important role as magazines move online, but all the imagery I see is small and rare and usually involves low quality video, or some sort of “game”/interactivity. This is all fine I guess, but not what I think of when I think photography.

Not sure a guild would be a “positive” thing for many freelance snappers, leastwise in terms of being some sort of a bargaining entity or an organization that looks out for the rights, concerns, and career development of its members. I’ve been a member of the WGA for many years and, frankly, they hold, most dearly, the needs of the top-earners to heart with much less regard for other members. I suppose that’s a pragmatic way to do business but regarding your hopes that it would do something “positive” or meaningful for the majority of its potential members, well…. I dunno if that would happen. Sorry if I seem like a cynic. Time and experience has worn me down.

Exactly. Editorial rates are already pathetic and never increase with the cost of living. I haven’t seen them change in my 10 years in NYC.

I hear a lot of talk of magazines putting a hiring freeze on freelancers and going in-house with their content. That can’t be a positive move creatively.

If you don’t mind sitting in front of the computer, I love reading certain magazines like Macworld with the Zinio reader. it’ a better reproduction than the print version, with live links to the advertisers and no wasted paper.

The big problems for contributors are twofold, and not directly related to publishing management: increasing competition and decreasing outlets.
You have more competition from rich media — the sites that are replacing print will increasingly go for video and interactive over still imagery. More competition from young photographers, particularly as photography becomes technically easier (sorry, but true.) More competition from stock sources. And, finally, competition from photoblogs and communities — I know that doesn’t seem related, but when I want to see cool pictures, I now go to photoblogs.org or similar sites rather than to magazines.
Decreasing outlets are pretty obvious: The recession/depression may all but kill the print periodical industry. Subscriptions will continue to decline. Print media will subsist, but you’ll see magazines increasingly as adjuncts to other industries: e.g. trade pubs, catalogs (like Lucky), membership publications, etc… This trend may further the conglomeration of photo sources, e.g. Corbiss, iStockphoto. It will also decentralize publishing, making it more difficult to connect efficiently with your clients. I know that’s all about print, and this discussion is about new media, but the truth is that still imagery is much less important to new media, and the text to image ratio of web is not in photographers’ favor.
The decentralization of print outlets may lead to less draconian contracts, which is not a bad thing. But most of this bodes ill for independent working photographers. The heyday of print publishing is behind us, which is tough to swallow for those of us who love print.

Where does that leave professional photographers? Not sure. I have a feeling the more hostile environment will lead eventually to fewer new photographers entering the fray. But photo schools will still try to pump out shooters like hot dogs at the Oscar Meyer plant.
A good discussion might be new sources of revenue from photography: new products, new clients, new applications for still imagery. A positive step would be the creation of a guild that helps define and standardize practices and rights, and also separates professional photographers from any hack with a point-and-shoot. Graphic designers have AIGA and Graphic Artists Guild, lawyers have the ABA, doctors have the AMA, Hollywood creatives have several powerful organizations, but I can’t think of a single entity that represents the interests of professional still photographers. This, in part, is what allowed many large publishers to bully contributors out of rights in the ’90s. A positive development are sites such as APE, which create a tighter community, but it needs to go further, I think — though I realize that might be too much to ask as photographers are notoriously independent and a bit disorganized.

Sorry for the long comment. Thanks for letting an art director eaves drop on your conversations.

Freelance work has been drying up as of recent, at least in Louisville,
and I haven’t been getting enough work here to pay the bills.

I’ve been offered numerous positions in the publishing industry,
but none of them have come anywhere close to being able to pay
the market rate for a skilled multimedia producer, interactive designer
(whatever you want to call it).

I think there’s a strong desire for progress to be made
at many of these publishing companies, but inadequate budgets
and multi-hierarchical red-taped bureaucracy appears to stifle
many necessary adjustments from being made.

Another thing is the working conditions.

Smart companies in the creative industries
work hard to keep their best talent from leaving.

After spending time working in both the “creative”
and journalism market sectors, I would say that
the treatment in journalism/editorial work doesn’t even compare
to the respect and treatment one receives in the creative sector.

The creative sector is much more liberal
about fostering and rewarding new, innovative ideas
which is pretty much the opposite of what I’ve observed
in the journalism/editorial sector.

The creative sector also pays a lot more money.

There also seems to be much more hostility and petty office politics
rampant in editorial work, as well as more anti-intellectualism.

Not everywhere though. Just in general.

Much of the success of a profitable company requires
the intelligent allocation of resources.

Many tech companies invest at least 25% of their net profits
right back into research & development, so as to stay on top
and ahead of the competition.

By definition, these growth companies tend to foster
more of a modern culture of innovation, whereas journalism
(which doesn’t appear to be a growth industry)
has a much more traditional culture of control and autocracy.

Imagine the win-win for the manufacturer if they could split the cost with a major publisher and give away their product, making them more visible.

Visibility will push more people to buy them or to subscribe.

On the other hand . . .

One commenter mentioned RSS feeds becoming the new “magazines” I think that hits at something that we’ll see more of over the next 5 years – custom content collections. I like to think that something like TiVo will begin to compile articles, photos, video, and similar content that you will like based on the stuff that you’ve added in the past.

Maybe the shift needs to be even more radical.

Forget publishing an entire magazine about cigars or recreational bicycling – publishers could become providers of content that has merit (think of the gate-keepers) so the quality will stay high.

Then they can sell ads embedded into this content for things like RSS aggregators or other specialty websites that act as a TiVo-type system.

- Give the people what they want but don’t make them work for it.
- Allow people to compile content of their individual diverse interest from hairless dogs to rollerblading.
- Let them have your content, add some adverts to it so you can make money.
- Don’t force them to see every other article you’ve published this month that they might not want to read but suggest what they might like at the end of your article based on it’s relevance to what they like.

I used to work at a magazine, and everybody was afraid to fuck up every once in awhile. We were a weekly, and every Wednesday, the editorial staff would sit around in a conference room and be asked, “what do you think of this week’s issue?” And all anybody would do was talk about successes, however small they were. Bringing up mistakes was a huge no-no, and my boss was even chided for saying how something could have been done better. “Don’t ever do that again,” he was told.

The old guard had no idea that you learn the most from your mistakes, not your successes.

If a print magazine is going to not only survive, but prosper, in this evolving business, it’s going to have to offer an entire experience based on its core ideals. And not just a dang website, either…

The thing that really gets me is how they’ve destroyed the contributors. I had one bill held up for two months because there was a receipt for a pack of tissues and a bottle of water listed under food, when evidently it should have be listed under supplies.

Meanwhile, the corporate/advertising side flies hundreds of people off for retreats in the Bahamas for karoke by aging rock stars, at a cost of who knows what.

They’ve gone out of their way to destroy the content and the people that produce it and haven’t paid any of the personal costs (although they’re the ones that created problems).

Then to blame the economy? Oh dear.

The bottom line is they don’t have a product without content.

No wonder I’m so grumpy.

Not to mention, I’d rather not spend my entire life jacked into technology!

As much a statement of discontent as a reasoned response, but as we’ve finished our tenth year as a radically computerized world, I can’t say I’m all that impressed.

BTW, my new favorite magazine is Corduroy. Not a page of advertising and the content is fresh and photographs beautiful, especially on the thick stock they use. I don’t know how they do it, but I’m glad someone is making a magazine worth picking up.

chirp.

Not if the content is crap. Ha.